Sorry if this has already been asked, but I just want to make sure that I'm doing this right.
If I have a domian object that has say 10 properties on it. I have a grid on my main form that I want to show the pretty much all the the properties from the model.
I created a viewmodel to wrap the domain object to show in the gridview but then I have to expose all the properties again. I just feel binding straight against the model through the viewmodel feels dirty and defects the purpose a bit.
So for example I don't really like this:
{Binding DomainObject.Property}
where DomainObject is property on my view model.
So my main question is, should I expose all the properties on the model through the view model just to bind it to the grid?
EDIT: Just for added information the domian objects are LINQ-To-SQL objects, so I don't think they implement INotifyPropertyChanged but I'm not sure.
Some people will say it doesn't matter, others say it does. I'm in the latter camp, for these reasons:
You increase the dependencies of the view, as it now depends on the data model, not just the view model.
You require the designers need to know the properties and structure of your data model.
You create more work for the (almost inevitable) refactoring when you decide you need a layer of indirection for formatting, validation, or whatever it might be.
As Thomas pointed out, data models often don't implement change notification
Yes, it's a little more work, but I believe it's worth it to reduce decoupling, maintenance headaches, collaboration with designers, and correctness.
PS. If you find yourself in this situation a lot, you might consider an implementation of ICustomTypeDescriptor that wraps any data object and exposes its properties with change notification. That way your VM can extend this generic wrapper until you decide you need to pull properties out for purposes such as formatting and validation.
If you need change notification on the properties and the model doesn't implement INotifyPropertyChanged, then you need to create new properties on the ViewModel. Otherwise, it's probably not a big issue to bind directly to the model : the MVVM pattern is just a guideline, you can bend the rules a little if necessary...
I think it is a matter of personal preference. I happen to believe it is perfectly fine to expose the Model in a single object from the ViewModel. Recreating all the properties of the Model in the ViewModel just results in a bunch of extra code.
However, this only works provided your Model implements change notifications so the data binding works.
Related
I have been downloading a lot of example code to help me gain a better understanding of MVVM within silverlight.
One of the things I have noticed is an inconsistency within the sample code I have downloaded. Some for example implement INotifyPropertyChanged on the viewmodels, where others implement it on the Model.
Which is the preferred way of handling property changes, should it be handled at the model level or the viewmodel level?
Handling (Notifying) property changes in the viewmodel would seem more natural if this is to update the item that's being displayed in the view by databinding.
One of the reasons for having a viewmodel in the first place is that it holds the data from the model in such a way that it's easy for the view to bind to it.
So, if the main reason for your INotifyPropertyChange in is to update the item which is bound in the view, you should update it in the viewmodel.
I typically use DependencyProperty instead of INotifyPropertyChanged, but the idea is the same.
Their purpose is to notify the view controls, they are bound to, that they have changed so the view can update. This implies a weak connection between the view and whatever holds the property or object. In MVVM, the view should never have any link to the model because of separation of concerns.
I will often have physically force this by creating a separate project for each of the view, viewmodel, and model. So, the answer to your question is that the INotifyPropertyChanged should be implemented at the viewmodel level because the view should never touch anything from the model level. Having said this, MVVM is just a coding paradigm to make the programmers job easier, so there could be reasons to implement it differently if it means making your job easier and it doesn't having any negative consequences.
I've just started learning WPF MVVM using Prism and Unity.
Decoupling the view from the viewmodel works pretty well, but I don't get how wire up my viewmodel and my model.
I doesn't feel right to just create a new EntityObject right in my viewmodel. I have already skim-read the WAF BookLibrary sample but it is quite bulky and adds a lot of extra stuff around the essential part (binding between view and viewmodel), and the Prism docs don't say a word (as far as I read it) about viewmodel - model interaction.
Does anyone know a good source that explains how to use viewmodel and model in a clean way or can me give some advise?
Best Regards
Jay
Everyone will have their own opinions on this. Personally I don't mind using the model directly in the view model. For me, the whole idea of a view model is to extend your model in such a way that it can be consumed by a view.
A simple example of this would be person object, It would have model properties like like name and age for instance. When I get to the view model stage I may add properties to it like visibility which would not make sense on the model proper.
Another point to note is I would consider a model to be the data and the view model to be the context. So you may have a "Card" View Model for a person but you may also have a "List Item" view model that represents the same model in a different context, with different view model specific properties.
I do tend to make my models up using interfaces where relevant and use Inversion of control to inject them into the view model, that way the only thing my view model actually knows is that it needs an IPerson and that it will be provided in the constructor.
As I said other people will have different ideas, all are correct and its up to you to work out which one suits your needs.
Let's say I have a model which exposes a collection of objects which I will display and change in a GUI.
So we have Model exposing a collection of ModelItem.
The View binds to a ViewModel which exposes an ObservableCollection of ViewModelItem. ViewModelItem is the Viewmodel of ModelItem
The View contains a ListBox and a DataTemplate. the DataTemplate is for items of type ViewModelItem. The View DataContext points at an instance of ViewModel. The ListBox binds to the ObservableCollection.
I control all the code.
So far so simple. Question:
Is it acceptable to expose the collection on the Model as an ObservableCollection? Further, is it acceptable to implement INotifyPropertyChanged on Model and ModelItem?
My concern is I'm muddying the separation between model and viewmodel, but then common sense says, here's a mechanism for notifying changes to elements in my model, lets use it...
Just wanted to get some perspective from others.
Thanks
Short answer:
YES. Use your notification interfaces on your model when you need to notify of changes. Do not worry about muddying your code with this. Be pragmatic.
Long answer:
My philosophy goes like this: When implementing MVVM, bind directly to model objects when there is nothing extra to do. When you need something new (new behavior, properties the view will utilize, etc) then you wrap the model objects in ViewModel objects. A ViewModel that does nothing but delegate data from the model is nothing but extra code. The moment you need to do something to that data past what the model object gives you, you introduce the layer.
So, to extend my thoughts further on that, (and to answer your question more directly), there needs to be a way for the model to tell the ViewModel when something changes. Often, model data is immutable so it doesn't need this notification mechanism, so it isn't necessary. BUT, it is also often the case that the model DOES change. When that happens, the model has two options: use a custom notification method (events, delegates, etc) or use INotifyPropertyChanged.
If you look at the namespace for INotifyPropertyChanged, it is in System.ComponentModel -- not the view -- so I prefer to use it in the model. It is a well-known interface and you can use it to bind directly to your model from your view. No need to implement anything different.
Taking this philosophy one step further, ObservableCollection is in System.Collections.ObjectModel -- also not view-specific -- and it implements System.Collections.Specialized.INotifyCollectionChanged which also is not view-specific. In other words, ObservableCollection was designed to be a collection that notifies its observers of changes. If you have a model that needs to do that, then ObservableCollection is your tool. It just happens to be convenient (not by accident, though) that WPF and Silverlight use these interfaces for data binding.
I guess this is a long-winded way of saying: "YES. Use your notification interfaces on your model when you need to notify of changes. Do not worry about muddying your code with this. Be pragmatic."
It is definitely acceptable to do both. I would even say it's required to do both. Your common sense abilities work just fine. :)
I would only add that if you don't need all the MVVM functionality for your ModelItems, then you can cut some corners by exposing an ObservableCollection<ModelItem> instead of an ObservableCollection<ViewModelItem>, and modifying your DataTemplate to suit. This will save you quite a bit of "preparation" code, so weigh the pros and cons.
It's certainly acceptable to use change notification in the data model if the data model needs change notification. It's also questionable to use change notification in the data model just because the UI needs change notification.
Generally, I design the data model as if there were no UI, and use the view model as an abstraction layer that hides the data model's implementation details from the UI. On the other hand, in a dynamic application it can be the case that the need for change notification is pervasive enough that it just makes more sense to put it in the data model.
No. It's horrible. Your model should not know how it is used. Giving it this knowledge defeats the object of MVVM.
The model should never know it is being used by WPF, winforms, a dos console, as a service or as a lib. If you tell it this, you are going wrong.
It should also be framework independent, not minding if it's part of MVVM, MVC or MXXX!
I often hear a Model must be wrapped by a ViewModel that the View is not coupled to the Model/not aware of it.
With MVC it is common to bind the View to the Model... nobody complains so what ?
I am frightened of creating all that wrappers and doing nearly only duplicating property stuff.
In some cases you don't need to, just as you don't need properties in many cases but can get away with public fields.
But your model should mirror the domain structure and logic, while a view model mirrors the UI structure and logic. At least, as far as I understood it. Those two are not necessarily the same and each one can change independently from the other.
You should always apply a pattern to your individual problem, and modify it in areas where it does not apply. Just because the pattern implies the usage of a view-model, doesn't mean you necessarily need a view-model in every scenario. In the case that your model exposes all of the needed properties and no further abstraction is needed, maybe a view-model is unnecessary.
However, in many cases the view-model will eventually be of great use and far easier to maintain than adding extra properties to the model. Consider this carefully before binding directly to the model.
The ViewModel is used to only pass the data that you really need to a view.
When you use the model, instead of the viewmodel it is possible that you use data that came directly from the database.
When using the model the wrong way, it is possible to edit data in the database that you don't want to edit.
It is safer to use a ViewModel.
One point which didn't seem to come up (directly) yet is that ViewModel can easily support data that should never even be in the model such as the text typed in the search text box or selected list items in case these values are needed in commands or further data bindings and passing them as parameters every time seems like too much trouble.
But as stated already, if you are confident that all the data you need is already available in the Model, go ahead and do away with the ViewModel.
One common scenario where ViewModels come in very handy is when Enum values should be displayed. In my eyes, a ViewModel is the perfect place to convert Enum values to user-friendly representations. You could even introduce a localization step in your ViewModel.
Furthermore, ViewModels can simplify some other scenarios. However, as you said, they can also duplicate a lot of code. That said, you could create a ViewModel with a Model property which allows to bind directly to the properties of the Model class. Now if you later realize that you need some conversion step, you can still add that property to the ViewModel and bind to that property.
But I think in most cases it makes sense to use a ViewModel from the beginning because it might be hard to introduce it in a later development stage.
There is no problem binding directly to a Model from your View where possible.
What you will find though is very quickly you run into a situation where you need to model things your view needs that aren't in your Model.
Given you never want to corrupt your Model with View concerns, you are left with no choice but to create a ViewModel.
It depends on may indicators: e.g. if your model is provided by EF there's no point in exposing it to your View - why the heck the View would need all model's method/properties and tons of stuff (not mentioning data security) But if your model is really simple and you feel, that you're not going to expand/change it much by and VM, there's nothing on the way to use it just like that :)
You might as well ask, "What's wrong with putting all the functionality of my program into one giant class?" On the one hand, there's nothing wrong; it can be made to work. On the other hand, everything is wrong: if your program is one big ball of wire, you have to straighten all of it out in order to change any of it.
Look at a Windows Forms programmer written by a beginner. You'll find all of the business logic in the buttons' Click event handlers. What's wrong with that? Don't you want that logic to be executed when the user clicks the button?
This is essentially what you're proposing doing within the world of WPF. Will it work? Sure. For trivial projects, it may even work well. You're accumulating technical debt, though, and when the time comes, you'll have to pay it off by refactoring your code into something manageable.
In my WPF MVVM application my model is a complex tree of Model objects wich constantly changes at runtime. Model instances come and go at runtime, change their position within the tree and of course change their many properties. My View is almost a one-to-one visual representation of that tree. Every Model instance is in 80% of the cases also a node in the tree.
My question is now how I would design the ViewModel around this? My problem is that there are quite a lot of different Model types with each quite a lot of properties. If I understood MVVM corretcly the view should not communicate with the Model directly so this would mean that I would have to create a ViewModel type for each Model type and have to rewrap each property of the Model type in the ViewModel.
Also the ViewModel would need to "bind" to the propertychanges of the Model to pass it along to the view (using wpf datatbinding). I would need some factory that creates and introduces a ViewModel instance for each Model that appears anew and I would habe to dispose each ViewModel instance when the corresponding Model disappears. I end up keeping track of all instances I created. It is unbelievable how much bloat code is generated dues to this double wrapping.
Is this really a good approach? Each entity and each property more ore less exists twice and I have a lot of extra code keeping Model and View in sync. How do you handle this? Is there a more clever way to solve this?
Does anyone have a reference/sample implementation for this that does it better than I do?
I think you may run into trap of paradigm if you follow this path. MVVM is nothing more than a pattern, which simplifies development in WPF world. If it doesn't - don't use it or revise your approach. I wouldn't spend 80% of my time just to check the "Using MVVM" field.
Now back to your question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are looking at MVVM from opposite direction: you don't need Model to ViewModel one-to-one correspondence. Usually you create ViewModels based on your View first, and only then on a Model.
Generally you look on a screen mockup from graphic designers, and create corresponding ViewModel, which takes all necessary fields from the Model, wraps/modify/format/combine them to make View development as easy as possible.
You said that your View is almost one-to-one visual representation of the Model. In this case it may have sense to create a very simple ViewModel which exposes root object of your model-tree, and let View consume model directly via that property. Then if you need some View customizations or commands processing you can delegate that to ViewModel.
Sorry for very vague answer. Maybe if you ask more specific question we could dispel the confusion :)...